I actually did mean it quite literally what I said and in no sensationist sense. Also I don't agree with your explanation of how nature and species behave but I do agree with some of your conclusions about humaninty. So let me explain myself in more detail:

Life in general spreads and consumes resources without any intelligent plan or design. It just spreads and consumes. I can agree with you that most living organisms and animals take what they only need but this is true only for individual creatures/entities. But when taken from the perspective of the whole species, any life form just spread until they hit a wall of what environment can sustain - in complex ecosystems there is an equilibrium of various factors and species which define these walls and balances out among each other.

I do agree however that humanity has capabilities that are unprecedented among Earth's life forms. It is this consiousness which you are talking about. It is the neocortex ability to visualize future and reason about it. So we can plan and organize the very aspect of life like the reproduction or resource consumtion. We can have intelligent plan and intelligent design instead of being mere game of life cells.

If we really were like animals, who don't have the even to us misterious concept of free will, then we would, as said before, run mindlessly naked in the forests without a goal. But animals don't spend all their time running in the forests without a goal, therefore they have a primitive free will too. They even have primitive forms of the abilities humans have, they even have a primitive reasoning and primitive communication systems.

Sure, but since logical positivism claims that it does not, in fact, do the thing, it's not a fallacy in this specific case. The title could just as well be "Why logical positivism fails to adequately answer questions of the human experience despite claiming to do just that."

Just because you can tag a dismissive Latin name for a fallacy (and admittedly, this does precisely meet the naive definition of Tu Quoque) on an argument doesn't make it fallacious.

Although I don’t bring up the issue of destruction and nature, I will add that technology can be used as an intermediary to appreciate nature. One example can be through nature shows and the like. Another is through empirical analysis. However, they both still don’t solve the issue with tech as an intermediary as opposed to a direct relationship with the natural environment.

I don’t mean “nature” or “natural environment” in the western sense. But in the phenomenal sense.

Eh I think this is twisting nature a bit to support exploitative views. Plus there's something additional about us that means we don't have to abide by the actions of all other living organisms.

On my first point, it can be seen that way if you consider anything beyond laying down at birth, not consuming anything, and dying, to be the true form of "no exploitation". Otherwise I'd say most animals take what they need and don't cause too much harm back to the local environment. Especially no where even near the scale of what we do. Even the species that do, we identify them as "invasive species" and have government funded programs to eradicate them. Even then, most invasive species are at the fault of humans.

Secondly, we are intelligent conscious beings that with the right mindset can live in harmony, or as close to it, with the rest of nature. We have science that observes nature and let's us know the standing of our actions. We currently have plenty of evidence to support that our actions are directly causing many ecological disasters and yet we make no action to improve. Rather we double down and continue to increase growth with no control. Nature he checks and balances, usually in the form of predators, to ensure that things are running smoothly. Humans have no meaningful predators except each other and planet earth.

"Dominating earth" is somewhat naturally embedded but we make conscious decisions on what natural things we support or not. Rape is a common natural occurrence yet we understand the morals of that much deeper than other animals so we try to get rid of it in society. We can make the same decision for exploiting nature and conclude it's something we should not do. Nature is amazing in so many ways, yet it's not perfect and has it's fair share of the "dark side" too.

If the Matrix was true, then the film Matrix in this world was actually created by the people of the real life Matrix that maybe were created by another Matrix and so on

The idea of the matrix is not wrong, but there's nothing wrong also with focusing on what we can sense even if it's limited. It comes to the point of which one can you live with.

To quote a meme:

“Hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals. All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?”

• Mickey Mouse

1. Not wrong
2. The mind controls all, but we can only control consciously a few. This is to distinguish the auto mode vs the conscious mode. Example. Breathing as you watch tv is automatic, but you can slow it down or breathe fast. Thinking before doing and stopping a thought becoming an action if bad for us; is probably the highest form of it.
3. Not wrong. I observe we can be convinced to believe a lie. But we can also change our minds if we're shown the correct measure.
4. The act itself is not denial of free will but believing in falsehood or a non fact
5. The mind rarely exercises it since most of the time were in auto mode. Only when we exercise the act of stopping to think and deliberate action non action do we exercise it.

dont bite, he's a troll

Ok, from this discussion we discovered that:

1. free will is real
2. some actions of the body and of the brain are impossible for the mind to control
3. the mind, if smart enough, will believe at some point the absurd theory that free will is an illusion
4. this last statement will cause a paradox in which the mind uses its free will to deny its free will
5. the mind is so deep in the freedom of free will to the point of not being able to see it, like fish in water

With a soft spot for Nazis, both Heidegger and Eichmann. Sometimes I wonder if she just did it for the controversy but I think she truly did believe that the Nazis were, like they say, not bad people, just following orders.

She was also a racist with elitist attitudes against "Oriental" Jews which was common back then and actually still somewhat common today in Israel but obviously no longer acceptable among the educated. I'm a Moroccan Jew who she would have looked down upon, so kind of not a fan of her elitist yekke bullshit!

What a weirdo.

Title should actually be "What's the fanciest Tu Quoque argument we could possibly make?"

Empathy in the (making the) rules of distributive justice. Not in the execution or interpretation of them ex post.

Well, perhaps the authorities would not just give and give without some kinds of restrictions, otherwise they might go bankrupt. They have to have some kind of critieria for their giving.

How empathetic are they? I'm sure that depends on individual workers or personnel within the authorities.

Is the giving used as a tool for social policy, a way of influencing people? Maybe. I can't think of any examples.

A direct relationship with the world doesn't dictate your willingness to destroy it or not. Many cultures claiming to appreciate nature still destroyed it. Using technology as an excuse or proxy doesn't really add up.

Yeah, I agree with this sentiment in general. If a person is morally repugnant or bankrupt that should be remembered. But their contributions to society aren't diminished because of that. You can absolutely cherry pick the good parts of a bad person's work.

Isn't this even older, embedded in the very nature of life ? I mean, any living organism spreads and exploits resources.

It is for sure. But I can't quit reddit. But I did the rest of them lol.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I would like to know your thoughts about this pdf :) https://philosofer123.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/my-philosophy-of-life-6-18-22.pdf

Cringe and utilitarian-brained

Exactly.

Nailed it. The guilt cope is real.

Also he may try to keep his advice apolitical because, from a utility-maximizing point of view, if you can appeal to the moral conscience of people across the spectrum, rather than primarily to those with one political affiliation, the good you will in turn encourage will be greater.

(And let's suppose that there are good people who vote for any given party, and that those are the only people he's concerned with talking to to begin with. There are plenty of left-wing people, as you point out, who are all talk).

I think if I were Singer one thing I would be concerned about would be politicizing my philosophy too much. So if he solidly aligns too much with <obviously left-wing party social policy plank> he stands to alienate half or more than half of his readers. From his point of view, it may be better to only advocate for voluntary of your own free will charity and hope that people get the hint on the systemic change side of things. Also, considering this stuff came up in the 70s, there's probably a bit of calculation going on regarding that political climate. (Thatcher and Reagan were just around the corner so maybe that relates)